Emanuel's arrogance exceeds his accomplishments

Nancy Stone, Chicago Tribune

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has relied on more than $500 million in taxable bonds since taking office, with some of the money going toward legal settlements, regular maintenance and demolition costs. This is called running city government on a credit card.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has relied on more than $500 million in taxable bonds since taking office, with some of the money going toward legal settlements, regular maintenance and demolition costs. This is called running city government on a credit card. (Nancy Stone, Chicago Tribune)

Kristen McQueary

In most worlds — business, politics, personal — an arrogant person who accomplishes things is not only tolerated but celebrated. Many of us will take an ass-kicker who gets results over a cautious consensus-builder any day of the week.

That's why Chicago voters picked Rahm Emanuel for mayor in 2011. They liked his rascally persona: the dead fish delivered to a pollster who disappointed him, the shower confrontation with an uncooperative member of Congress, the reported, "Take your (expletive) tampon out and tell me what you have to say" to a male White House staffer who wasn't on point.

The strutting. The finger-pointing. The swearing. Come on. We loved it.

But Chicago's affection toward Emanuel has shifted in a way that is different from the natural fizzle elected officials experience in their first terms. Here's why. Emanuel has stretched the continuum in opposite directions. His arrogance is oversized for the record he has amassed. He's beyond bossy. He's a walking personality disorder. But his audacity exceeds his accomplishments. That's a dangerous combination.

What set Emanuel apart during the 2011 mayoral race was his willingness to aggressively contend with the city's debt and unsustainable pension costs. While the other candidates deliriously insisted they would find the money to replenish the city's pension funds, Emanuel was willing to confront the math. He didn't get city workers' union endorsements for a reason.

Three years later, the city has only nipped and tucked at its debt and deficit spending. While acknowledging the city inherited a mess, Emanuel in February — with nearly three years in office — pushed a $900 million borrowing plan through the Chicago City Council. Borrowing.

This in a city that has regularly relied on expensive taxable bonds with high interest rates to make ends meet — and yes, part of that has come under Emanuel. The Tribune's alarming 2013 series "Broken Bonds" outlined some of those decisions, including an unexpected $12 million cost from the disastrous parking meter debacle. The city borrowed to cover that expense in a deal that will end up costing taxpayers at least $30 million.

Emanuel has relied on more than a half-billion dollars in taxable bonds since taking office, with some of the money going toward legal settlements, regular maintenance and demolition costs. This is called running city government on a credit card.

On top of the borrowing, he has continued to spend: his infrastructure trust, a hotel in the South Loop and an arena at McCormick Place, renovations at Navy Pier, expanded bike lanes and on and on. That's just downtown. Chicago Public Schools, also under Emanuel's stewardship, is prepared to spend $423 million — triple what it spent last year — for bricks and mortar projects, mostly on the North Side.

And the city still has not dealt with its pension funds for police, firefighters or teachers. The pension liabilities are growing; the city's and CPS' credit ratings have been knocked down by ratings agencies; and there's no palpable momentum in Springfield to address those funds before the next election.

So remind me: How is Emanuel's stewardship markedly different from the previous mayor's? Emanuel is about to run for re-election having made only a dent in this city's debt and pension tsunami.

Emanuel did get a Chicago Park District pension bill signed. He is waiting for Gov. Pat Quinn's signature on a bill that would address the pension funds for laborers and municipal workers. That's good. He deserves credit for those advances.

But he was too hands-off for too long. He went to Springfield once in 2012, testified before one committee and then what? Expected lawmakers to do the heavy lifting? Not gonna happen. A mayor who needs significant reform out of Springfield ought to get his little fanny down to Springfield. He didn't.

On education, he downsized a monstrous school system, closing nearly 50 schools, and lengthened the school day. But he has completely ignored one of his campaign objectives, to give parents the power to take over and transform failing schools. And he doesn't support vouchers, a transformational change that would empower the city's least advantaged families and infuse competition into a lousy school system.

He has no discernible strategy to rescue the South and West sides from cancerous gang activity and crime. He would rather focus on the well-to-do regions of the city. If one of his drivers plopped him at a South Side intersection, he would need Google Maps to get back home.